The KVIC, according to the legal notice, has also threatened to launch legal proceedings against Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. if it does not desist from displaying the trademark similar to its own.
A Fab India spokesman, however, dubbed the KVIC claim as "baseless", and said it will defend itself "vigorously" if any action was taken in pursuance of the legal notice.
It sought an "unconditional apology" and a written undertaking from Fab India that it will not deal in any khadi or related products bearing khadi trademark.
According to sources, KVIC, which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, sent the legal notice on January 29 and sought a response from Fab India within seven days of receipt, failing which the commission will approach court to protect its "rights and goodwill".
"The claims made in the notice are baseless. The notice has been entrusted to our lawyers, and any action taken in pursuance of the notice will be defended by us vigorously," a Fab India spokesman said.
The KVIC's lawyer said in the legal notice that in July 2015, it was noticed that the company was "illegally" using the khadi mark tag and selling products bearing the trademark which was "identical" and "deceptively similar" to KVIC's registered trademark.
The KVIC notice said it caused "irreparable loss, harm and damage to the goodwill" associated with the khadi trademark and also loss to the artisans.
It said the KVIC had earlier sent a notice to the company on August 13, 2015, asking it to stop "illegal and unauthorised" use of khadi mark and desist from issuing "misleading" advertisements for khadi products in newspapers.
However, in and around January 2017, KVIC was shocked to know that despite the undertaking, Fab India was using khadi tag on products.
It claimed that the company "deliberately" used the similar trademark and khadi tag with the sole intention to "trade upon the goodwill and reputation" of khadi and its products worldwide.
KVIC's notice alleged that Fab India continued to "deceive" public that its products are handwoven, and that its intentions are malafide. It contended that the company was liable for both civil and criminal proceedings.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
